4 ms·

>Should a 17 year old who is still in high school while living with his parents be paid $25/hour for working at McDonald's? Yes. >his parents are already prov

by Inityx 4y ago

>Should a 17 year old who is still in high school while living with his parents be paid $25/hour for working at McDonald's? Yes. >his parents are already providing what he needs And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor?

credit_guy 4y ago
One potential solution: the government pays the workers a part of difference between what their wage and $25/h based on various criteria. If you live with your millionaire parents, the fraction is zero. If you are the only wage earner in a family of four, the fraction is 1. The guiding principle should be that if the government/society thinks some people need assistance, then they should just provide it directly, rather than just force others to provide it for them.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor?" They simply should try to get the skills for a higher paying job. And if they cannot (for whatever reasons, there are actually plenty of very legitimate reasons) - you can help them out with social welfare/charity money, especially if they have a family to feed. And then you can further help them, by providing free education with low barriers (that you can even do, while having little kids) etc. so one day they can stand on their own. There are many things that can be done, before you have to negate the right of 2 free parties to make a contract under their own terms. So my ideal policy would be the economy should be simply as policyfree as possible to sort itself out. That doesn't mean, society cannot help those, who need help. It can and it should. But this is called charity and not economy, so why mix both up?
_-david-_ 4y ago
>Yes Why? The point of a living wage is to ensure a person can live on their wage. In this situation the person can live of their wage. >And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? If the best a person can do in life is a cashier at a fast food restaurant than they either have a problem (substance abuse or mental) and should get help or lack any motivation to grow. I don't think we need to make rules out of exceptions like that. The point of jobs like that aren't to stay at it for the rest of your life. >What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor? I don't believe somebody who can't get a simple order correct should get $25. Maybe if they got it right 99% of the time that would be one thing, but they aren't even close. I don't know what you mean by policy solution? Somebody should get a better job if they want more pay.

by Inityx 4y ago

credit_guy 4y ago

One potential solution: the government pays the workers a part of difference between what their wage and $25/h based on various criteria. If you live with your millionaire parents, the fraction is zero. If you are the only wage earner in a family of four, the fraction is 1. The guiding principle should be that if the government/society thinks some people need assistance, then they should just provide it directly, rather than just force others to provide it for them.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor?" They simply should try to get the skills for a higher paying job. And if they cannot (for whatever reasons, there are actually plenty of very legitimate reasons) - you can help them out with social welfare/charity money, especially if they have a family to feed. And then you can further help them, by providing free education with low barriers (that you can even do, while having little kids) etc. so one day they can stand on their own. There are many things that can be done, before you have to negate the right of 2 free parties to make a contract under their own terms. So my ideal policy would be the economy should be simply as policyfree as possible to sort itself out. That doesn't mean, society cannot help those, who need help. It can and it should. But this is called charity and not economy, so why mix both up?

_-david-_ 4y ago

>Yes Why? The point of a living wage is to ensure a person can live on their wage. In this situation the person can live of their wage. >And what about people who aren't in this particular situation? If the best a person can do in life is a cashier at a fast food restaurant than they either have a problem (substance abuse or mental) and should get help or lack any motivation to grow. I don't think we need to make rules out of exceptions like that. The point of jobs like that aren't to stay at it for the rest of your life. >What is the policy solution to filter out people who you feel don't deserve this level of compensation for their labor? I don't believe somebody who can't get a simple order correct should get $25. Maybe if they got it right 99% of the time that would be one thing, but they aren't even close. I don't know what you mean by policy solution? Somebody should get a better job if they want more pay.